On 9/23/07, William Stein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 9/23/07, Jason Martin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Some thoughts: > > > > 1. I've been doing some performance comparisons on GMP 4.2.2 with the > > patches that Sage uses, and I haven't seen any remarkable differences > > between 4.2.2 and 4.2.1. Granted, I have only tested Linux on > > AMD64/Intel64 and OS X on Intel64. Perhaps some other platforms have > > a greater difference. (By the way, the GPL patches for gcd/xgcd seem > > to work just fine.) > > Is GMP-4.2.1 with the gcd/xgcd patch vastly faster than GMP-4.2.2 at > what the gcd patch is for (i.e., gcd's of million digit numbers)? > > > It is nice that it will compile under OS X now without patching... and > > it even builds dynamic libraries. It is somewhat slow without > > patches, though. > > Do you mean that GMP-4.2.2 is somewhat slow without patches? > Or that GMP-4.2.1 is? Or? > > > 2. I suspect that the GMP developers were very deliberate in their > > license choice and will not release it under "LGPLv2 or greater". > > Much of the v2/3 license debate hinges on DRM issues: public key > > crypto is a big part of most DRM systems, and GMP is a natural choice > > for implementing public key crypto... but it can't hurt to ask. > > I think GMP is not going to change to LGPLv2 or greater; switching > from LGPLv2 or greater to LGPLv3 is the one and only new "big feature" > of GMP 4.2.2 (see the release notes). > > Also -- much more importantly, the copyright owners of GMP > are the Free Software Foundation -- not "the GMP developers", > and their agenda is very clear. > > > 3. How much of Sage is under "v2 Only"? That's the only portion that > > should cause problems isn't it? > > Good question. First, how do we determine if something is v2 only? > From the GPL itself: "Each version is given a distinguishing version > number. If the Program specifies a version number of this License > which applies to it and "any later version", you have the option of > following the terms and conditions either of that version or of any > later version published by the Free Software Foundation. If the > Program does not specify a version number of this License, you > may choose any version ever published by the Free Software > Foundation." > > So the only problem would be software that specifically says "GPL > version *2*". For the Sage source code itself, we always just write > > > # Distributed under the terms of the GNU General Public License (GPL) > > except in the following files: > > interfaces/matlab.py: > matrix/matrix.pyx: > matrix/matrix0.pyx: > matrix/matrix1.pyx: > matrix/matrix2.pyx: > matrix/strassen.pyx: > > I hold the copyright on all those files above. > > However, in the COPYING file for Sage itself, I wrote: "All original > SAGE code is distributed under the terms of the GNU General Public > License *Version 2*." > > Just out of curiosity, would anybody be angry if I were to remove the > words "*Version 2*" from the above sentence in the COPYING file?
I would prefer that you say "GPLv2 or later (at your preference)" instead of just removing it. GAP is GPLv2. I will ask gap-dev about changing that to "GPLv2 or later (at your preference)" . > Evidently nobody (but me) has ever actually submitted any code to Sage where > they explicitly put "Version 2" in their copyright statement. > I'm asking this mainly to see what our options are. > > Regarding Sage dependencies: > > * PARI -- they include the GPLv2 in the distribution, but the source code > files all just say: "you can redistribute it and/or modify it under the > terms of the GNU General Public License", i.e., nothing about V2. > So evidently PARI isn't a problem. > > * Singular -- same as SAGE -- all source files say "GPL version 2 or > latter" or don't > mention anything about versions. The top-level copying file does very > explicitly say "( version 2 of the License );" > > * clisp -- a cursory glance and it seems the same as Sage and Singular -- > the top level COPYRIGHT file explicitly says GPL v2, but when you look > at sources, if they have a copyright statement it (here I didn't check > everything) says "v2 or later". > > I'm not checking anymore right now, since perhaps the above is enough > of a sample to spark some useful discussion. > > > William > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel URLs: http://sage.scipy.org/sage/ and http://modular.math.washington.edu/sage/ -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
